Club La Costa [dammed or not]
Timeshare is awash with complaints thus, the industry set up the Organisation for Timeshare in Europe (OTE) which after a rocky start suddenly changed their name to the Resort Development Organisation (RDO). This organisation asserts that it represented the legitimate timeshare companies one of which is Club La Costa.
The RDO asserts it is proud to have CLC as members and to date, the RDO has not admonished them for selling unlawful contracts to consumers. Equally the RDO side kicks TATOC (The Association of Timeshare Owners Committees took the same position. The main feature in the anointing of the membership was that CLC pay both association money to be members. This fact is not disputed and neither is it disputed that CLC has a band of disgruntled consumers who strongly believe they were misled by the sellers of CLC contracts.
In respect to TESS we have hundreds of complaints and are aware the contracts sold and the validity of them have been tested in the courts in the UK and Spain. In each case, CLC contracts have been deemed to be unenforceable. In the UK as a result of either the existence of an unfair relationship with the supporting banks and in Spain, as a result, a lack of objects (there very construction). Having asked for and received a variety of advice including the translated judgement against CLC, TESS asserts that the contracts which it has investigated are unlawful, void which would result in most cases double compensation if the matter is advance to court.
The finance agreement which supports the loans will be dissolved and the sums paid to the banks will be returned to the consumers.
Facing these huge claims an in fear that the resorts will be embargoed you now find the RDO is creating consumer associations and CLC is trying to get back the very contracts they sold so that consumer cannot claim compensation from them, but you can and on a “no win no fee” arrangement.
In compliance with TESS’s social obligations below is a redacted judgement which confirms what TESS has stated.
In respect to the mis-selling of the points and fractional ownership timeshares by CLC
IN THE RULING No. 192 OF 2017 In the city of FUENGIROLA, on 11 July 2017, Esperanza Brox Martorell, Magistrate-Judge of Trial Court no. 1 of Fuengirola they asserted the District has seen these records of Ordinary Procedure 378/2017 put before this Court by virtue of the lawsuit against Paradise Trading S.L.U. and Club La Costa Resort Management Limited, and,
FIRST. The plaintiff asks for the ruling statement, whereby the following is declared:
– The nullification of the contract signed on 25 January 2015 with the commercial entity Paradise Trading S.L.U., with reference number 688921, as well as an appendix thereto.
– The nullification and rejection of the advance payment of the amount of £36,300.41 paid by the plaintiff to the aforementioned entity, and the obligation of the latter to return those amounts in double, therefore sentencing Paradise Trading S.L.U. to pay to the plaintiff the amount of £72,682, this being twice the amounts paid as advances upon the signing of the contract dated 25/1/2015, before the period set legally for exercising the power of contractual termination, plus the legal interest accrued from the date of the presentation of the lawsuit.
– That the amount that must be deducted from the amount claimed, due to the reimbursement that must be made by the defendant of the party that proportionally corresponds to the years not used amounts to £1,453.64, sentencing Paradise Trading S.L.U. to pay the plaintiff the amount of £71,228.36, its equivalent in Euro as of the date of the legal demand amounting to €82,104.40.
– The Co-defendant Club La Costa Resort Management Limited is sentenced to pay the plaintiff the amount of 3,651.54 Euro for annual maintenance fees (“Management Charge”) paid during the years in which this contract was valid, plus the legal interest from the date of the presentation of the lawsuit.
All of this is to be paid alongside the corresponding legal interest, with the express sentencing of costs.
The plaintiff alleges that on 25 January 2015, it entered into a contract with the entity Paradise Trading S.L.U. entitled “Solicitud para el Club de Proprietarios de Propiedad Fraccionada y Contrato de Compras” (“Application for the Divided Ownership Club and Purchase Contract”), contract number 688921, subject to Law 4/2012, the nullification of which, as well as an appendix thereto, is intended for the following reasons:
1st/ Failure to determine the purpose on which the rights transferred fall, in violation of Articles 11, 23.2, and 30 of Law 4/2012 and in violation of Articles 1256 and 1261 of the civil code, in connection with Article 23.7.
2nd/ Violation of Article 23.4 of Law 4/2012, in relation to Article 23.7, upon collecting the prohibition of linking the time-share right to 1 indivisible share of the property, nor calling it a multi-property, nor that it otherwise contains the word “property”.
3rd/ Infraction of the prohibitive rule of Article 13 of Law 4/2012 with regards to the collection of advance payments by prohibiting the payment of advances prior to the conclusion of the abandonment period.
SECOND. In light of the evidence given, it is shown that on 25 January 2015 the claimant signed contract number 688921 with the so-called “vendor company” Paradise Trading S.L.U., a company incorporated in Spain with registration number B38306957 with headquarters in Tenerife, the purpose of which was to acquire “exclusive usage rights” (Divided Rights) on a number of Weekly Periods equivalent to the Divided Points. These divided points were not indicated to transfer or grant usage right on any assigned property, indicating that the “divided rights consisted of 2,520 points, which corresponded to 3 weeks (of the 52 found in 1 year), the first year of use or occupation being 2015, in the Sunningdale Village Resort (Tenerife, Spain), the property assigned being 14 D, the price for the first year of use amounting to 8,830 pounds sterling, to be paid prior to 11/2/2015, and the total purchase amounting to £36,341.
The current law 4/2012, of 6 July, on time-share contracts for tourist use, acquisition of long-term vacation products, resale and exchange and tax rules, which transposed into Spanish law Directive 2008/122/EC, is in an application.
We find that in the aforementioned contract, there is an absolute lack of determination of its purpose, in violation of the provisions of Article 23.2, given that in no case does the usage right purchased pertain to 1 specific accommodation nor is the particular usage period specified. That lack of determination is evident when it reflects the desire to enjoy a “flexible system” for reserving holidays in “locations distributed across the world”, resulting that the exclusive usage rights acquired (divided rights), which are equivalent to the divided points, do not transfer or grant usage rights to any specific property, resulting that the acquirer, would be specific to the undivided ownership fee on 1 property, 14 D,
A property assigned to a complex for which there are no registry reference results in [under the provisions established in Section 7], the contract would be void of any right due to not knowing precisely what its purpose was, in addition to missing the minimum content referenced in Article 30 of that law.
Ultimately, it cannot be deemed in any way that the purpose of the contract is determined in accordance with the legal prescriptions, not being able to specify to how many months that flexible scheme corresponds with respect to the fact that the bases for determining it are not stated, it is unknown who ultimately would acquire it, without there being 1 stable and secure purpose as a stable place for using it. Upon the signing of the contract, of the total price of 36,341.00 pounds’ sterling, 27,511 was paid, with 1 remaining debt of 8,830 pounds sterling remaining, this being abandoned after obtaining a loan, which determined the obtaining of the certificate of divided rights. On the other hand, the co-defendant CLC Resort Management Limited has not discussed the payment that it states to be made for the maintenance fees corresponding to the years 2015, 2016, and 2017 (480.86 Euro plus 1,022.68 Euro plus 2,148.00 Euro, Pages 66 et seq.), 1 total amounting to 3651.54 Euro.
THIRD. It also violates the provisions of Article 13 of the aforementioned law, which under the rubric of “prohibition of advance payments“, they are prohibited before the conclusion of the abandonment period, which was 14 calendar days from 25/1/2015 (Page 29, back). And payment being due upon the signing of the contract (25/1/2015) in the amount of £27,511, i.e., prior to the conclusion of the abandonment period, it is possible that the provisions of Section 3 of that precept take place, i.e., that the consumer may claim, as is being done, twice the amount delivered, i.e., they may claim the issuance of 72,682 pounds’ sterling, ultimately its equivalent in Euro. The entirety of the amount delivered being £36,341, broken down into:
– payment on 25 January 2015 of the amount of £27,511
– payment of £8,830 on 26 January 2015
Considering, as the plaintiff does, that the total amount claimed (£72,682) from Paradise Trading [sic], the sentencing of which does proceed, there must be deducted the amount of £1,453.64, corresponding to the value of the years enjoyed by the plaintiff in application of the variables contained in Fact 8 of the statement of claim, resulting in a total of £71,228.36 that, as of the date of the presentation of the lawsuit, amounts to €82,104.40.
FOURTH. Given the estimate of the lawsuit, and by application of the objective criteria of the termination considered in Article 394 of the LEC, the resulting procedural costs are imposed on the Defendant.
Having seen the cited legal provisions and other articles of general and pertinent application,
I HEREBY RULE
That deeming as I deem the lawsuit formulated by the claimant against the entities Paradise Trading S.L.U. and Club La Costa Resort Management Limited, I must and do declare the nullification of the contract signed in January 2015, object of the litigation, under number 688921, sentencing Club la Costa Resort Management Limited to pay the plaintiff the amount of €82,104.40 and sentencing Club La Costa Resort Management Limited to pay the plaintiff the amount of 3,651.54 Euro, in both cases plus the legal interest due from the date of the demand and the payment of the procedural costs.
Thus, this shows that the asserted position of TESS is entirely accurate and the advice TESS gives accords with that of the Courts in Spain.
How to fund your legal claim
The information provided above confirms your case has merits. Therefore you are required to make a decision do I claim or Not. If you don’t want to claim I am very sure the resort will take the product back and cancel your timeshare if you ask them, as they will not face a substantial compensation claim. If you want to claims damages you have another question to settle. How do you pay for the legal costs? You can either pay yourselves or have you case funded by another.
If you pay the costs yourself you will receive 100% of your compensation but the drawback is that you may face adverse cost orders should your claim fail. If you have the case funded you will have to give up a proportion of your damages if you win but the funder will pay all your costs and supported you in the event that you face adverse costs order thus a “no win no fee”.
Unlike other sometimes shady companies, at TESS we try and make the claims process very easy. At present, we have over 100 CLC claimants all pursuing CLC in many forums. All are supported by Litigation funding.
To obtain Litigation finance consumers with TESS will only proceed on a “no win no fee” claim from start to finish. The funding available to TESS is non-reciprocal in that should you lose the claim, you pay nothing, however, should you win, a fee will be applied in the form of a % of damages awarded to you.
To access the funding each consumer is required to make an application for funding which again is a “no win no fee”. Essentially what the consumer is required to do is, supply copies of all your relevant documents and we will make a proposal to the funders on your behalf, if you receive funding then we will be charged a fee of £750.00 plus vat. If you are refused, you will not pay a penny. When funding is granted you will not be expected to contribute a penny to your legal costs, as they are all paid by your funder.
It simple and does not contain any risk at all.
To access this funding line, all you have to do is phone Jacqueline 01253 208482 and request a funding application form.
Please note all claims made in the UK are supported by “Hunter Wolf” and claims is Spain are accessed via “Cassadora Lobo
Posted on: 20th July 2017